A.K. Goswami, J.

Heard Mr. U. Das, learned counsel for the petitioner. Also heard Mr. U.K. Nair, learned senior special standing counsel, Foreigners Tribunal, appearing for respondent Nos.2, 5 and 6; Ms. G. Sarma, learned CGC appearing for respondent No.1; Mr. D. Baruah, learned standing counsel, Election Commission of India, appearing for respondent No.3 and Ms. U. Das, learned standing counsel, NRC appearing for respondent No.4.

2. Challenge in this writ petition is to an order 03.03.2012 passed by the learned Member, Foreigners Tribunal No.1, Goalpara, in F.T. Case No.2172/G/08, whereby the petitioner was held to be an illegal migrant of post-1971 stream. The petitioner has also challenged an order dated 07.07.2018 passed in Misc. Case No.3/2018 arising from the F.T. Case No.2172/G/2008, whereby, the application filed by the petitioner on 26.06.2018 under Order 9 Rule 13 of the CPC read with Order 3(1) & (2) of the Foreigners Tribunals (Amendment) Order, 2013, praying for setting aside the ex parte order dated 03.03.2012 was rejected.

3. Subsequent to the notice received by the petitioner, the petitioner had entered appearance and had filed written statement on 30.11.2010. It appears from the order of the learned Tribunal dated 03.03.2012 that the case was fixed on 29.01.2011, 24.03.2011, 16.05.2011, 21.06.2011, 02.08.2011, 06.09.2011, 17.10.2011 and 30.11.2011. On 04.01.2012 last chance was granted and on 04.01.2012 the petitioner did not appear. However, the learned counsel for the petitioner filed a petition praying for one more adjournment and accordingly, 20.02.2012 was fixed giving last chance. On 20.02.2012 another petition was filed praying for grant of time. Considering that ample opportunity was granted to the petitioner, the learned Tribunal was not inclined to grant further time.

4. Section 9 of the Foreigners Act, 1946 provides that if in any case not falling under Section 8, any question arises with reference to the Act or any order made or direction given thereunder, whether any person is or is not a foreigner or is or is not a foreigner of a particular class or description, the onus of proving that such person is not a foreigner or is not a foreigner of such particular class or description, as the case may be, shall notwithstanding anything contained in the Indian Evidence Act, 1872, shall lie upon such person.

5. It is relevant to note that under Order 3(14) of the Foreigners (Tribunals) Order, 1964, a mandate is given to the Foreigners Tribunal to dispose of a reference within a period of 60 days of the receipt of the reference from the competent authority.

6. In Sarbananda Sonowal -Vs- Union of India, (2005) 5 SCC 665 at Paragraph 73, the Supreme Court had observed that the procedure under the Foreigners Act, 1946 and the Foreigners (Tribunals) Order, 1964 is just, fair and reasonable and does not offend any constitutional provision. In Paragraph 63, the Supreme Court had observed that there can be no manner of doubt that the State of Assam is facing external aggression and internal disturbance on account of large-scale illegal migration of Bangladeshi nationals and that it, therefore, becomes the duty of the Union of India to take all measures for protection of the State of Assam from such external aggression and internal disturbance as enjoined in Article 355 of the Constitution. In Paragraph 70, it was observed that the influx of Bangladeshi nationals who have illegally migrated into Assam pose a threat to the integrity and security of the North-Eastern region and that their presence has changed the demographic character of that region and the local people of Assam have been reduced to a status of minority in certain districts.

7. The petitioner remained silent after passing of the impugned judgment for more than 6 years and, as noticed earlier, only on 26.06.2018, the application, registered as Misc. Case No.3/2018, was filed along with an application for condonation of delay. In the said applicati